Rifle And Pistol Association Files Federal Suit To Overturn Gun Law

The New York State Rifle And Pistol Association filed a lawsuit in federal court in Buffalo earlier today that seeks to overturn the state’s gun control law approved in January.

The lawsuit takes a variety of issues with the gun control law, including equal protection claims and complaints over essentially granting a monopoly to New York ammunition sale as well as second amendment violations.

From the suit:

The Act’s limitation of magazine capacity to 7 rounds or 10 rounds, depending on when they were obtained, and the Act‟s prohibition on loading more than 7 rounds in any magazine, facially and as applied, infringe on the right of the people, including plaintiffs, to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, of the United States Constitution.

In addition to the NYSRPA, which acts a New York chapter of the National Rifle Association, freshman Assemblyman Bill Nojay is also listed as a plaintiff on the suit.

This entry was posted by Nick Reisman on March 21, 2013 at 2:00 pm, and is filed under Gun control. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

sik-of-it

I’ve been considering joining this organization and this well structured lawsuit made up my mind. Thanks for taking the fight to the source!

Berkshire_Boy

Ok, so they went judge shopping and filed in Paladinostan. So you can chart how this is probably going to play out in the short term. But the SCOTUS made it clear in Heller that the right to bear arms is not absolute, to wit:

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”

orange county

I doubt this suit will get any further then the most recent one which went in favor of the SAFE Act. There was a bill to add a citizens Initiative and Referendum to the state constitution a year or so ago. I don’t think it went anywhere but if it had Pro and Anti gun voters could place this issue on the ballot for all the voters to go on record. Imagine the money that would bring into the state! Instant prosperity for the political/media advisor types.